Saffa joined Bermans in July 2025 and is a Paralegal in our Litigation team in Manchester.
She assists in property disrepair cases, commercial leases and contract disputes. She often helps prepare bundles, take counsel notes and various other tasks.
Saffa studied Law at the University of Leeds, graduating in 2024.
Outside of work, Saffa enjoys reading and going to the gym. She also enjoys playing tennis with friends on a weekend (when the weather is nice!).
When handling high-stakes disciplinary or grievance matters – particularly involving senior staff – many businesses sensibly turn to external HR consultants or investigators to ensure objectivity, professionalism, and compliance. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision will come as welcome news for those operating in this space: unless they take an active role in making the actual decision to dismiss, external investigators cannot be held personally liable for alleged discrimination or whistleblowing-related dismissal.
The long-running case of Higgs v Farmor’s School appears to have come to an end, after the Supreme Court last month refused permission to appeal. This means that the current legal position is as set out in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case from earlier this year.
A recent tribunal ruling against high-street retailer Wilko serves as a costly reminder that even technical breaches of collective consultation law can carry a high price. Following its 2023 collapse, Wilko was found to have failed in its legal duty to properly consult with staff ahead of making large-scale redundancies. The result? Protective awards worth around £2 million across its former workforce.
Staying awake at work is one of the most fundamental requirements of almost every job. However, the recent case of Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd serves as a reminder to employers that they should not jump to a conclusion that being asleep at work always warrants dismissal. Context must always be taken into account. In this case, Mr Okoro was a CCTV controller.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 lists redundancy as a potentially fair reason for dismissal. But the existence of a genuine redundancy situation or a sound selection process doesn’t guarantee a fair dismissal. Employers also have a duty to explore alternatives – especially the possibility of alternative employment. Too often, this part of the process becomes a ‘tick box’ exercise: pointing to a vacancies list and leaving the rest to the employee. A recent case highlights how this approach could render an otherwise fair redundancy dismissal, unfair.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. These adjustments aim to remove or reduce disadvantages caused by a disability, and can include changes to the workplace, providing assistive equipment, or adapting how tasks are carried out. The goal is to enable disabled employees to access, stay in, and thrive in work.
Whether or not an employee meets the legal definition of a disabled person is a crucial starting point in any disability discrimination case. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
It’s a basic requirement when claiming employment rights that the claimant is, in fact, an employee of the respondent. But sometimes, especially in the context of care, the lines can be blurred. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Scully v Northamptonshire County Council clarifies the distinction between care funding arrangements and employment relationships.
For HR teams in international businesses, one tricky question is whether UK employment tribunals can hear claims against colleagues who live and work overseas. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision offers some helpful clarity.